Medical Care Organizations Telemedicine Perspectives Colleague Interview (Continued from page 19)
Douglas Pryce, M.D.
Is the resolution process the best way to ensure that MMA addresses the issues that are most important to Minnesota’s physicians and their patients? If not, is there a better way to gather needed member input?
You have made the decision to join MMA and TCMS. Why did you make that decision?
The strength of the resolution process is that it helps physicians craft a focused and persuasive argument for change. However, this same process can be intimidating for those who are not actively involved in the organization and in this way may discourage dialogue about issues that are important to Minnesota physicians. Physicians may feel more comfortable bringing up or addressing issues via email or phone, for instance. After soliciting input from a broad base, chairs of committees could systematically address issues raised by the general membership. Particularly poignant issues could then be elevated to the level of the MMA Board, where MMA policy could be set. This strikes me as a good way to reach a broader audience and to ensure that we are hearing the diverse voices of our membership.
I care about the current state and future of medicine and a well organized medical community is needed to guide policy makers and policy. I see MMA as a reputable and effective organization in it for the long haul.
How should TCMS help members weigh in on this governance discussion? I think TCMS is doing a good job of keeping our membership aware of possible governance changes. The next step will be to collect and organize any feedback we receive. It will be critical that parties who may disagree with the current plan are not disenfranchised from the process and from MMA. Whatever our governance structure looks like, we will need to move forward with as broad a coalition as possible brought into our future plans. If we do not, we risk alienating members both old and new. I believe this governance change is a good way to increase involvement in our organization and to better represent Minnesota physicians.
What would you say to younger physicians who tend not to be joiners as to why they should join MMA/TCMS? What is your “elevator speech” on why to join? There is a lot going on and we can have an effect with the organization and access that MMA has already set up; participation is easier than on your own. The attendance numbers for the MMA House of Delegates have steadily been going down over the last 10 years. Do you believe this is because the House of Delegates structure is outdated or is it just a fact that fewer members want to go to meetings today? It is ok if you are presenting an issue; but, overall there are too many issues thus a diluted effect. How do we ensure that we are hearing from members on key advocacy issues when they don’t seem interested in attending the House of Delegates? We might be able to use our resources to identify key informants and ask them for help on particular issues. The supporters of MMA’s new governance proposal have argued that it is needed to find better ways to engage more members on the key public policy issues facing physicians today. Critics see it as removing members from the policy decision making. What do you believe? We are removed, as evidenced by less than robust numbers, and being heard needs to be balanced with effectiveness and not overwhelming — thus listening.
20
May/June 2013
MetroDoctors
The Journal of the Twin Cities Medical Society